The Prince of Peace

Blake T. Ostler

After the victory of Persia over Babylon and the return of the Jewish nation from

the exile, the expectation of God’s final victory through his messiah became prominent.

The Deuteronomic ethic which taught that God rewarded the righteous and punished the

wicked in this life had largely given way to the apocalyptic world view which looked for

justice at God's hand only in the world to come. According to this apocalyptic view, the

wicked reigned in the present world, but God would intervene in history to bring about

decisive judgment upon the wicked and exalt the righteous at the end of times. The belief

that justice and the full exercise of God's sovereignty would break into the present world

coalesced with the prophetic vision of messiah as warrior who would initiate the end of

time by a bloody and final, military victory. The messianic expectation took many forms

among the Jewish people in late antiquity, but the largest part of the people yearned for

the glory of Israel during the time of David. They awaited the decisive military victory at

the hands of the Messiah ben Judah, a descendant of the royal house of David. This

expectation is expressed in the Palestinian Targum on Genesis 49:10:

How beautiful is the king, the messiah, who will arise from those who are of the house of Judah! He girds up his loins and goes forth and orders the battle array against his enemies and slays the kings along with their overlords, and no kingly overlord can stand before him: he reddens the mountains with the blood of their slain, his clothing is dipped in blood like a winepress. As part of the 'Amidah repeated in the daily Jewish devotion along with the

Sh’ma', the cry to God was for deliverance by a decisive show of force and power:

"Consider our suffering and fight our cause, and redeem us quickly for the sake of thy

name, for Thou art a powerful Redeemer. Blessed art Thou, 0 Lord, the Redeemer of

Israel." (Seventh Benediction of the Seder 'Avodat Yisrael). To many in and around

Jerusalem near the end of the first century B.C.E., the times appeared ripe for the

fulfillment of the prophecy uttered by Zechariah: "Behold, the day of the Lord cometh,

and the spoils shall be divided in thy midst. Behold, I will gather all the nations against

Jerusalem to battle, and the city shall be taken and the houses despoiled by weaponry,

and the women ravished, and half of the city will go into captivity, but the residue of the

people shall not be cut off from the city. Then shall the Lord go forth and fight against

those nations as when He fighteth in the day of battle." (Zech. 14:1-3).

The times were difficult and seemed to many to cry out for violent revolution

against the Roman oppressors who ruled the Promised Land. The precedent for such

military revolt had been established only a century before when the Maccabeans had

revolted against the Greek conquerors of Palestine. In 167 B.C.E., the Hellenistic rulers

had attempted to stifle the Jewish religious observance by forbidding worship and the

observance of the Torah, and finally by desecrating the Temple. Appealing to their

tradition of holy war and a newfound sense of Jewish nationalism, the Maccabeans were

able to marshal the faithful Jews to route the Greeks in a series of bloody battles that had

secured political sovereignty for the Jews for over one hundred years. In 63 B.C.E., the

Romans had conquered Palestine and the Jews were once again oppressed by a foreign

power, an unjust and corrupt military regime that desired nothing more than to obliterate

Jewish religion and nationalism. The Romans exacted heavy taxes and reinstituted

slavery under Herod the Great. The vast arsenals and strength of the Roman Empire

made it impossible to imagine a military victory without intervention of the warrior

messiah.

In such circumstances, it is not surprising that the question of violent revolution

was one of the primary questions facing the Jewish people - and the advent of the

expected military messiah was the burning religious issue of the day. There was no

shortage of messianic claimants to lead the insurrection. Armed rebellion had been

incited against the Roman oppressors on three different occasions following the death of

Herod the Great, and each rebellion was led by a different messianic claimant. Anyone

claiming to be the messiah meant trouble for the Romans. The Romans viewed a claim

to be the messiah as a claim of treason against the Roman rulers, a crime punishable by

crucifixion. The Jewish people also began to suspect anyone who would make messianic

claims in the face of disaster after bloody disaster in which the hope of the messiah meant

only defeat and death for those seeking liberation.

Various sects and parties had arisen in this ferment of political dynamite, and the

Zealots were the chief advocates of violent overthrow. The Zealots mixed their intense

nationalism with the popular religious expectation for final victory at the end of the then

current era of sinful rule. They took the apocalyptic view with full seriousness. Unlike

the Sadducees who preferred to compromise with the Roman rulers, the Zealots insisted

on violent revolt by guerrilla warfare and terrorism. They felt that any means of

overthrow was justified by the end of liberation, at any cost. They felt that God must

surely oppose the Romans and would reward their religious fervor and commitment to

the chosen people with military victory in the present world and a great reward in the

world to come. The Zealots emerged about 6 C.E. in an attempt to incite a popular

uprising. The only way to usher in the new era was to provoke the predicted bloodbath in

which God would be obliged to intervene according to prophecy. Though the uprising

was averted, the Zealots continued to operate around Jerusalem and demanded a similar

response from all who could be considered righteous. Theirs was a religion of force and

war aided by God. Sadly, the Zealots foolish military resolve eventually led to the

destruction of Jerusalem. It was the revolt of the Zealots in 70 C.E. that forced the

Romans to destroy Jerusalem.

The Essenes and the Qumran covenanters preferred retreat to the desert to await

the advent of the new age. Their plan was to usher in the new era by their greater

righteousness and observance of the law apart from the corrupted Jews in Jerusalem.

Their wait was to be peaceful until the advent of the messiah, but the War Scroll found at

Qumran demonstrates that they expected to join the messiah in battle when he came in

glorious and decisive victory over the oppressors: "[T]here shall be mighty combat and

carnage in the presence of the God of Israel, for that is the day which He appointed of old

for the final battle against the Sons of Darkness. Thereon the company of the divine and

the congregation of the human shall engage side by side in combat and carnage, the Sons

of Light doing battle against the Sons of Darkness with a show of godlike might" (1, 12-

15 in Gaster, 400). The Qumran covenanters gave a messianic interpretation to Isaiah

11:1-4 which demonstrates their expectation of a royal messiah who would bring final

military victory at the end of time: "[The reference is to the Zion of] David who will

exercise his office at the end [of days]. His [ene]mies [will be felled], but him will God

uphold....[H]e shall bear sway over all the hea[th]en, and Magog [shall be vanquished by

Him], and his sword shall wreak judgment upon all the peoples" (Gaster 307). The

people at Qumran felt that the end of the present era and the beginning of the new era

governed by God was not far off, for the separatist community had been established for

the very purpose of preparing the way in the wilderness for the coming of the new age

spoken of by Isaiah when Israel would be restored (1QS 9:19-21). Only they constituted

the holy remnant, the little flock which God had chosen, for they exulted: “we - we are

Thy Holy People" (War Scroll xiv, 15: Gaster 418).

The ruling class Sadducees were not attempting to usher in the new age: they

wanted to preserve their wealth and status in the present one. They cherished their wealth

accumulated from a monopoly on sales of animals at the temple and from offerings. The

corrupt clan of Annas monopolized the office of High Priest and wanted to preserve their

power by compromising with the Romans. The scholarly Pharisees who take a beating in

the later writings of the Church represented in the New Testament did not wield the

influence and power that is attributed to them in the Gospels, but they too were looking

for a compromise that would preserve their lifestyle and luxury. The political question

was thus whether to violently overthrow the oppressors or to accommodate the Romans

and preserve what wealth and power one could enjoy. It apparently had not occurred to

Jews of the first century that they had presented themselves with a false dichotomy of

political options which was enshrined also in their religious expectation: either the new

age or the old age, either the present political order or violent overthrow, either us or

them.

Amid this political strife and religious division, a truly revolutionary escape from

the false dilemma appeared in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, whose influence was so

tremendous and insight so great that the term God would be expanded to refer to him in

later memory. Our vision of Jesus of Nazareth is inherited and mediated though the eyes

and experience of the later Church that formed in response to his message. His message

was so unexpected that even his disciples could not understand what he offered - a theme

especially prominent in the Gospel of Mark. It is also the interpretation through

categories of understanding of these disciples who had been raised in the culture of

religious expectation and political turmoil that we find utilized in the New Testament to

make sense of Jesus. Our view of Jesus is therefore incomplete and colored by the

perception of the disciples, infected by later recognition being read back into their

experience of the earthly Jesus, Looking back on the life of Jesus of Nazareth from the

optic of the disciples' post-resurrection experiences allows us to see what they regarded as

the true meaning of his sayings, and gives us the advantage of their insights realized upon

extended reflection upon their experience of Jesus. The records left us in the gospels are

not historical biographies, but constitute religious testimony of the true meaning of

history as it culminated and reached new meaning in the life of Jesus of Nazareth. The

import of the gospels is sufficiently complex that a review of their reliability and

compilation is warranted.

The Sources: The gospels of the New Testament which are the chief source for

understanding Jesus' teachings were constructed many years after Jesus' death. The

gospel of Mark was written before Matthew and Luke, a point easily deduced from the

fact that both Luke and Matthew rely on Mark as a source but develop the Markan

material differently - sometimes even tacitly disagreeing with the Markan interpretation

of various passages. The fact that Matthew and Luke interpret Mark differently is

significant, for it means that there was a diversity of tradition and interpretation about

Jesus in the early Church. It also demonstrates that Matthew and Luke were composed

independently from one another. Mark was written circa 60 C.E., probably in Rome

(Raymond E. Brown and John P. Meier. Antioch and Rome. New York: Paulist Press,

1983: 191-97).

Matthew and Luke also quote from another common source, usually identified by

showing that Luke and Matthew have about 200 verses which show striking similarities

or are identical and which are presented in almost identical order, but which are not found

in Mark. This common source is usually denoted "Q" (from the German Quelle which

means "source") and consists primarily of a collection of sayings which appears to go

back to the words of the earthly Jesus, for the passion and resurrection are not found in

the Q material (P1. Hoffman, Studien zur Theoloqie der Loqienouel1e, Munster 1972).

The Q Source is generally regarded as a more reliable guide to Jesus' teachings than

parables and episodes which are presented by only one of the synoptic gospels. The

material not in common among the gospels, but appearing only in one or other of the

Synoptics, consists largely of independent traditions or oral tradition that grew up around

the memory of Jesus and the experiences of those who were with him and who felt that

Jesus continued with them even after his violent death. We will show a common

scholarly preference for material appearing in the Q source for the purpose of

understanding Jesus' message and self-understanding. The gospel of Matthew was

written sometime between 80 and 90 C.E., probably in or around Antioch (Brown,

Antioch. 51-57). The gospel of Luke was reduced to writing about 85 C.E., and was

written as a two part salvation history with Acts to demonstrate the spread of Christianity

from Palestine to Rome (Leonard Goppelt. Theology of the New Testament. Grand

Rapids: Eerdman's, 1982, 269). Each of the Synoptics, Matthew, Mark and Luke, relies

on material composed earlier, but we have them only seen through the eyes of the later

writers of the gospels.

The gospel of John presents an altogether different situation. Except for the

passion narrative, it has very little in common with the synoptic gospels. The gospel of

John places Jesus' ministry almost entirely in Jerusalem whereas the Synoptics have Jesus

entering Jerusalem but once. The Synoptics have Jesus' death take place on Passover day

while John had the death on Passover eve - John is probably more accurate here!

(Raymond E. Brown. The Gospel According to John I-X11. New York: 1985. XLII-LI).

Jesus constantly speaks of the kingdom of God (Luke and Mark) or the kingdom of

heaven (Matthew) in the Synoptics, but the phrase fall from his lips only once in John.

Instead of the kingdom, John speaks of eternal life as the goal for Christians. Jesus

probably spoke the language of the Synoptics. The thought world of John is very

different from the Synoptics. In the Synoptics Jesus demands repentance to prepare for

the immanent kingdom of God: John demands rebirth as a metaphor for repentance or

change of life (Compare Jn.3:3/Mt. 18.:3). The gospel of John speaks the language of the

desert sects common to the Essenes and Qumran community whereas the Synoptics speak

the language of Palestinian Judaism (Leonard Goppelt. Theology of the New Testament:

The ministry of Jesus and Its Significance, Grand Rapids 1981, 14-17; and essays in

James H. Charlesworth and Raymond Brown (eds). John and Qumran. London, 1972).

John is generally not reliable as a history of Jesus of Nazareth, though some specific

passages may go back to a more reliable tradition than the Synoptics. John is, even more

than the Synoptics, an interpreter of the meaning of Jesus' actions and words. The gospel

of John is presented as a revelation .which discloses the true meaning of Jesus' ministry

in its fullest symbolic significance. If Jesus eats, it is the bread of life. If he hears the

wind, it is a lesson about the way the spirit works. If he offers a Samaritan woman water,

it is from the well of eternal life. John's Gospel reveals more than meets the eye, and he

clearly saw in Jesus more than those who walked with him during his life.

It should be obvious from our treatment of the sources that we will not present a

fundamentalist view of Jesus - a view which is dishonest history and bad theology.

Sensitivity to the inherent problems of historical assessment is crucial to a responsible

evaluation of the message and meaning of Jesus. There are valuable nuances of

interpretation that give us a deeper insight into the meaning of Jesus for the writers of the

gospels. The gospels are not accurate history and, with the possible exception of Luke,

were not meant to be. The gospels show us what the disciples found to be most valuable

in Jesus' message. The expectation of the immanent kingdom of God is prominent in

what the disciples understood of Jesus' message, but the view of the messiah which he

presented and Jesus' answers to the political and religious dilemmas facing those in his

day were revolutionary (in the sense of totally new and daring, not of military

insurrection) and unexpected. Though the messages of the gospels are clearly presented

in the idiom and within the cultural horizon of first century Christianity, the life of Jesus

transcended his culture and times and created hope that still offers us totally unexpected

solutions in the nuclear era.

The Kingdom of God: It has long been recognized by scholars that the kingdom

of God and its establishment were the focal point of Jesus' message. The emphasis upon

the kingdom is especially prominent in Q and the Markan source material. The Synoptics

present Jesus calling persons not primarily to accept belief in a set of doctrines or

allegiance to ecclesiastical authority, but to repentance in preparation for the kingdom of

God which was, for Jesus, "at hand." Nevertheless, there is no scholarly consensus as to

just what was Jesus' conception of the kingdom of God (besileie tou theou). While all

agree that the kingdom denotes God's rule in some way, it is unclear whether Jesus

thought of the kingdom as the sovereign rule of God that would be established at the end

of the present world or whether Jesus conceived of a kingdom that was being realized on

earth in his ministry and was somehow already present in Jesus' ministry even before the

apocalyptic conflagration. Many scholars follow Albert Schweitzer and Rudolph

Bultmann in interpreting Jesus to teach that "God will suddenly put an end to the world

and to history ... Jesus expected that this would take place soon, in the immediate future"

(Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1955,

12-13). This interpretation of Jesus' message is premised on the popular Jewish

eschatological expectation (the belief that the end of the world was coming soon as

predicted) and upon primary sayings of Jesus.

In the early saying tradition of Q (Lk. 19:9/Mt. 10.7) and in the redacted

summaries of Jesus' words (Mk. 1:7/Mt. 4:17), Jesus is represented as saying that "the

kingdom has drawn near" (engiken he basiliea tou theou). The clear burden of his

message was that the "time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and

believe the gospel" (Mt. 4:17/Mk. 1:7). Jesus taught, like John the Baptist, that people

must repent in light of the nearness of the kingdom of God. (W. G. Kummel, Promise

and Fulfillment: The Eschatolooical Message of Jesus. Studies in Biblical Theology 23,

1961, 35). The Baptist recognized Jesus as the "Sent One" who would initiate the

judgment which was to be rendered at the advent of the kingdom of God. John the

Baptist offered to those who sought him out in the desert a chance to prepare for the

kingdom through repentance (metancia) and ritual purification that would cleanse sins,

and thereby provided a way to escape the pending catastrophe that would accompany the

coming of the kingdom (Schi1lebeeckx, Jesus: An Experiment in Christology. New

York: Crossroad Publishers Co. 1981. 134-35). The necessity of repentance, of a total

transformation of life that would change its orientation from the present world to the

kingdom, was urgent because God would come in judgment, and all who had not

repented would find everlasting punishment rather than blissful existence in the kingdom

(Mt. 3:7-8/Lk. 3:7-9). By submitting to John's baptism for the remission of sins, Jesus

certainly saw John's call to baptism as the proper way to prepare for entry into the

kingdom of God. Jesus regarded John's baptism as "being from heaven” (Lk. 20:4). It

should not be inferred from Jesus' acceptance of John's baptism, however, that he placed

his stamp on the apocalyptic conflagration that John preached. John's message did not

demand commitment and faith in his person, nor did John see the kingdom realized in his

baptisms. Above all, John taught of a judgment to be avoided while Jesus taught of a

goal to be sought, valuable above all else that competed for human attention and

commitment.

The moment of baptism was clearly understood as a moment of theophany and

self-revelation for Jesus. The theophany announcing Jesus as the Son of God constitutes

an early tradition that Jesus may very well have intimated to his disciples. The voice

declaring, in the language of the Psalms, "this is my beloved Son," was not heard by

those present. It is clear that the populace wasn't aware of Jesus' adoption as the beloved

Son and equally clear that the disciples did not understand the significance of Jesus

message and death until after his death (Mt. 17:22-23/Lk. 9:43b-45/Mk. 9:31-32). Even

John was unaware of the divine disclosure of Sonship, evidenced by the well attested

passage which has John later sending his disciples to enquire whether Jesus is the "one

that should come," i.e., John wanted to know if Jesus was the expected apocalyptic

prophet sent by God (Mt. 11:3/Lk. 7:20).

Jesus claims and self-understanding must begin, insofar as it is possible to grasp

what he believed about himself at all, from the revelation following his baptism. The

revelation of the Holy Spirit as a dove was enshrined in the apostle's teaching as the gift

of the Holy Ghost following baptism for all Christians (Acts. 3:12). The anointing was

the metaphorical sign of the gift of the spirit - an anointed one of course was a messiah,

though not the messiah. The most important clue to Jesus' insight gained from his

encounter with John is the designation of Jesus as the "coming one" and the "sent one"

(Lk. 3:17/Mt. 3:11). Thus, John recognized Jesus not as the Son of God, son of David, or

San of Man, but as the decisive figure who would initiate the kingdom with fiery

judgment: "there cometh one mightier than I after me, whose shoes I am not worthy to

bear ... whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his

wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire" (Mt. 3:11-

12/Lk:3:16-17). Only the Son of Man figure in Dan 7:11 who comes in authority from

God to judge corresponds to anything like John's "expected one" in intertestamental

Jewish literature (Schi1lebeeckx, 132). In Daniel, the judicial figure who represented

God as God would come in fiery judgment to initiate the kingdom of God which was cut

out of the mountain without hands (Matthew Black, Throne Theophany). Jesus’ entire

ministry centered on repentance and the kingdom of God, and his teachings about himself

all bear the indelible stamp of the experience following his baptism by John and

acknowledged by the Father.

We shall return to the theme of eschatological judge of Israel when discussing the

Son of Man figure and the claims Jesus made about himself, but it is important to realize

that Jesus may have assumed some measure of the messiah figure, as the one anointed

with the gift and authority of the spirit, and as the Son of Man figure who initiated

judgment, without adopting whole-cloth the notions then popularly associated with such

figures - instead he was the "sent one," the one mightier than the Baptist. The baptism is

the moment from which Jesus understands his call by God. The baptism narrative,

especially clear in Mark, is in the form of the Old Testament prophetic call genre - a form

announcing the prophet's commission from God to take a message to the public

(Zimmerli, Ezechiel). Jesus' call and endowment with the spirit, like that of Ezekiel

(Ezek. 1:1-2:5), endowed him with a peculiar understanding of what God wanted him to

accomplish and, most importantly, made him aware that he must drop everything else in

life and proclaim the news of the kingdom which was drawing near (Goppelt, 41).

According to the Lukean special source, Jesus opened his public ministry in his

home town at the daily devotion in the synagogue. Jesus had apparently just returned to

the place where he grew up as a boy after being away for some time. Jesus had already

encountered John the Baptist and spent time alone in spiritual preparation for his

ministry. The gospels say he repaired to the desert for the purpose of being tempted of

the devil. Undoubtedly, the time of preparation was one of turmoil and self doubt.

Behind the story of the tempting lies the question that he would put to those he

encountered during his ministry - could he leave the glory of this world and devote his

entire heart, might, mind and strength to the kingdom of God? Hebrews 5:7-8 reports:

"In the days when he was in the flesh, he offered prayers and supplications with cries and

tears to God.... Son though he was, he 1earned obedience from what he suffered" (trans.

Raymond Brown, A Crucified Christ in Passion Week. Liturgical Press, Collegville,

19B6, 17). Can it be doubted that Jesus himself faced the decisive question he would put

to those whom he challenged to give up all for the kingdom? Jesus' decisive call to

"follow" him derived from his own experience of the call received at baptism and heard

again in the wilderness to drop everything and seek the kingdom of God.

The daily devotion in the synagogue would forever set him apart as the one sent

to bring about the kingdom of God. After the reading of the She'pach it was common to

allow a member of the community to read from the law and prophets and then offer a

short commentary. Jesus offered a reading of his own choosing from the prophets. He

opened the text to Isaiah and read a passage which would have had overt messianic

implications for those in attendance:

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach the good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;

To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;

To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the Lord, the he might be glorified (Isa. 61:1-3).

Luke then records that Jesus closed the book, returned it to the rabbi, sat down

and, while "the eyes of all" were "fastened upon him," he announced that the Kingdom of

God was upon them in his fulfillment of the messianic prophecy: "This day is this

scripture fulfilled in your ears" (Lk. 4:16-21). The effect upon Jesus' hearers was

powerful and predictable. He had delivered an astounding message. The spirit was upon

him, apparently referring to his call at the baptism and the authority bestowed by the

spirit to preach. Those in attendance at the daily devotional took offense and rejected the

challenge he had placed before them. Could the little boy they knew as the carpenter's

son have really offered what they all hoped for? This wasn't the messiah they expected.

Instead of victory and deliverance from their oppressors, he offered good tidings to the

meek and brokenhearted. He had come not to declare a kingdom of decisive military

victory, but to proclaim liberty to those who were burdened by poverty, blindness and

injustice. The influence of Jesus' experience at the baptism pervades his message, but he

announced a different kingdom than John had taught. Jesus' message was centered on the

good news of God's reign to the meek and poor, to proclaim the coming judgment of

God's kingdom which was the present and ultimate hope for the outcast and oppressed.

The initiation of Jesus' ministry, reported only in Luke, perfectly illustrates the

purpose and message of Jesus' ministry. Matthew also implies that Jesus made a

preliminary visit to Nazareth before commencing his work at Capernaum (Mt. 4:13), and

all of the gospels initiate Jesus' public ministry with the announcement that mirrored the

Baptist's own teachings: "the time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent

ye, and believe the gospel" (Mt. 4:17/Mk. 1:15). Unlike the Baptist's message, however,

Jesus' message was a proclamation of joy and good news. Jesus regarded what he taught

as cause for rejoicing, for the deliverance of the oppressed and outcast was at hand. Jesus

clearly understood that he had been called to "preach the kingdom" and bring about its

realization on earth in his healings and exorcisms. Mark reported that Jesus insisted that

he was the one sent to preach the kingdom: "And he said to [his disciples], Let us go into

the next towns, that I may preach there also: for therefore came I forth. And he preached

in their synagogues throughout all Galilee, and cast out devils." Matthew and Luke

emphasize different aspects of Mark's report. Matthew highlights the activities which

made the kingdom of heaven present in Jesus' ministry: "And Jesus went about all

Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and

healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people" (Mt. 4:23).

Luke, on the other hand, emphasizes Jesus' understanding of the message God had called

him to preach: "And he said unto them, I must preach the kingdom of God to other cities

also, for am I sent for that purpose" (Lk. 4:43).

Early in his ministry, Jesus appears to have believed that the kingdom of God

would appear within the lifetime of his disciples: "I say unto you, that there be some that

stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come

with power" (Mt. 16:28/Mk. 9:1/Lk. 9:27; Cf., Mk. 13:30). Indeed, Matthew reports that

when Jesus sends his disciples to spread his message, he instructs them: "preach as you

go, saying, ‘the kingdom of heaven is at hand’.... I say unto you, you will not have gone

through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes" (Mt. 10:7, 23b). Scholars

following Bultmann have interpreted Jesus from the perspective of the decisive end of the

world which he expected before the disciples returned from their mission, at the very

least before one generation had passed. The issue is not, however, when Jesus expected

the kingdom, but what was the nature of the kingdom that Jesus expected? It is clear that

the kingdom was not only close, but was, in some sense, realized during Jesus' lifetime

in his ministry.

The Q source represents Jesus as responding to the question of the Baptist: are

you the sent one? Jesus answered indirectly, "Go and tell John what you hear and see:

the blind receive their sight and lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the

dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them" (Mt. 11:5/Lk. 7:22).

In other words, all of these actions are signs to John that Jesus is indeed "the sent one,"

and John's disciples need not wait for the fulfillment of John's prediction that the

kingdom is near. He was fulfilling the prediction found at Isaiah 61:1-3 with which he

initiated his ministry. Jesus himself characterized his healings as a sign that the kingdom

was already breaking into the present world in his ministry. When the Jewish authorities

charge Jesus with casting out devils by the power of Satan, Jesus points out the absurdity

of Satan working against himself by allowing his own emissaries to be cast by Jesus and

tells them in no uncertain terms that if they consider him to cast out devils by the power

of God, they must recognize that the kingdom of God is breaking into the present world:

"if I cast out devils by the spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come upon you" (Mt.

12:28/Lk. 11:20). In a saying whose authenticity is almost universally accepted, Jesus

declared: "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; not will they

say ‘Lo, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold the kingdom of God is in your midst" (Mt.

11:6/Lk. 17:21). The Greek phrase over which there has been much discussion, idou gar

basilia tou theou entos hymnon estin, can be translated to mean that the kingdom of God

is within, in the midst of, or all about one (Goppelt, 63). But if Jesus really believed that

the kingdom was present while the Jews were still under the political rule of the Romans

and the masses labored under injustice, perhaps his view of the kingdom was not the

decisive end of the world expected by his contemporaries and by the later church infected

with the apocalyptic worldview.

Jesus apparently saw the judgment that would initiate the separation of the wicked

from the righteous at the beginning of the kingdom coming in glory as present in his

ministry, indeed in his amazing claim to have authority to forgive sins. When a certain

man stricken with "the palsy" was brought to Jesus and lowered in a bed before him for

the purpose of healing, Jesus perceived that "their faith" was sufficient that he could heal

the sick man. Jesus imparted the wholeness of body and spirit by a gesture pregnant with

implications: “Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.” (Mt. 9:2/Lk. 5:20/Mk. 2:5). Healings

were not uncommon in Jesus' time, but even the faith healers so common in Judea at the

time did not claim to heal by forgiving sins. The scribes did not hesitate to charge Jesus

with blasphemy, for he had assumed the prerogative to forgive sins that was reserved for

God alone. Jesus' reply to the charge of blasphemy is a reliable indication of his self-

understanding: “Whether it is easier to say to the sick of the palsy, ‘thy sins be forgiven

thee;’ or to say, ‘arise and take up thy bed, and walk?’ But that ye may know that the

Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins.” (Mt. 9:5-6/Lk. 5:23-24/Mk. 2:9-10).

Here Jesus renders judgment as the Son of man and demands faith as the condition to his

healing message - a faith that heals both spiritually and physically.

Luke adds another pericope wherein Jesus forgives sins because of the love

manifest by the woman who anointed his head: "Wherefore I say unto thee, her sins,

which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the

same loveth little." (Lk. 7:46-47). Luke thus emphasized that forgiving of sins is related

to a restored relationship marked by repentance. Forgiveness meant that the entire person

became whole and the relation to God is restored through Jesus’ forgiving judgment. The

kingdom was already present for those who expressed faith in the person of Jesus and

manifested that faith by love. The judgment that would initiate the kingdom was already

manifest in Jesus who came as the expected Son of man.

It is therefore essential to Jesus’ teaching that his disciples would help bring about

the kingdom through prayer and forgiving sins on a personal level. Jesus taught his

disciples to petition the father for a world that they hoped would be realized in their own

lives. They were to pray: "thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in

heaven, and forgive us as we forgive." This is no mere petition, but a definition of the

nature of the kingdom of God on earth. The kingdom was come whenever and wherever

the will of the Father was done on earth as in heaven. The will of the Father was fulfilled

in whosoever expressed love and forgiveness. The kingdom was a decisive reality that

was yet to come in its decisive fashion regardless of personal preparation, to be sure, but

it was a decisive reality that was already realized to the extent human life was

transformed by love and forgiveness. E. P. Sanders is thus surely correct in seeing the

kingdom as "the reign of God, the 'sphere' (whether geographical, temporal or spiritual)

where God exercises his power." (Jesus and Judaism (Phil. 1985, 126). For Jesus,

God's sphere of influence was in the here and now as well as in the there and not yet.

Jesus also introduced a new relationship and intimacy in prayer that undoubtedly

offended his contemporaries with its sense of familiarity with the Father. Jesus taught his

disciples to pray: “Father – 'abba.” He did not use the terms commonly used in prayer

'abi, meaning "my father," or even the usual term used in the prayers of the synagogue

addressed to 'abinu, "our father." As J. Jeremias has shown, Jesus adopted a unique

address used by young children in the intimacy of the family circle to address their own

fathers, analogous to the English term "daddy." (Abba. Studien zur neutestamentlichen

Theologie und Zeitoeschichte Gottingen 1966). As David Flusser has shown, the use of

Abba as an address to the Father was also adopted by "wonderworkers" in Jewish history

who believed that their intimacy with God allowed them to perform miracles (Jesus

Hamburg 1968, 133-36). Jesus was unique in the entire history of Jewish thought,

however, in teaching his disciples to pray to ‘abba. He must have been aware of his

break with the tradition at the very point of most intense religious expression found in

prayer. Jesus offered a new, more intimate relation to the Father that was available to his

disciples through him. Far from the impassible and immutable God of the later tradition,

the God of Jesus was offered as an intimate father whose entire concern was humankind

and involvement with persons in the here and now. For Jesus, the ultimate expression of

this concern, of this good news, was the kingdom of God that was already drawing near

in intimate re-union with the father. The kingdom was present for those who obtained

forgiveness through love that transformed the person from a life in the present order to a

life worthy of the kind of life manifested by God. The full understanding of what the

kingdom signified for Jesus is expressed well by Edward Schillebeeckx:

Jesus is the man whose joy and pleasure is God himself. God's lordship is God's mode of being God; and our recognition of that engenders the truly human condition, the salvation of man. For that reason God's lordship, as Jesus understands it, expresses the relation between God and man, in the sense that ‘we are each other's happiness.’ Ultimately, it is the ancient covenant of love, fellowship with God, in which God nevertheless remains the sovereign partner. Thus anyone having anything to do with Jesus is confronted with the God of Jesus. The one thing that Jesus is getting at is that God is a "God of human kind." (Jesus, p. 142).

The kingdom is the expression of what Jesus found to be most valuable about life,

our "ultimate concern" in Tillich's terms. It is the entire hope for the "poor" inhabitants

of the world. Jesus faith is hope for a better world that we must strive to realize in the

here and now, and the faith that God can make a difference in bringing about that world.

The command to love represents the hope for finding that world and escaping the fate

that awaits us if we are not prepared for a world where love is not only the norm, but the

entire meaning of existence. The love command that knows no bounds is thus at the core

of the hope Jesus offered to the world.

The Context of the Enemy-Love Command: The love that the Father manifests

for humans is the focus of Jesus' hope for the kingdom to be realized in the lives of his

disciples. The radical love that characterizes the divine relationship with humans, that

suffers for, because of and with us, is manifest in the command to love even enemies.

There is no command more demanding than the request to surrender all self-interest, to

literally give all that one is, heart, might, mind and soul, for the benefit of the kingdom by

embracing one's enemies. The kingdom is thus the ultimate paradox, where "whosoever

will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever will lose his life for [Jesus'] sake will save

it." (Mt. 16:26/Lk. 9:24-25/Mk 8:35-37). Jesus presented the hope and challenge of a

kingdom where only by foregoing every legal recourse, eliminating every claim against

one's neighbor, and by removing every barrier to one's enemy could the meaning of

human existence find fulfillment. His purpose was to alter the orientation of each person

through repentance and a radical reorientation of values, and thereby to transform society

and the world from the old age into a new order and kingdom, to alter the status quo to

conform to the behavior and social order as the Father intended it from the time of

creation. Though Jesus cannot consistently be viewed as a political revolutionary, it is

clear that he presented a revolution in behavioral demands that went beyond the Law and

prophets and criticized the existing social order as unworthy of the kingdom.

Jesus’ challenge to bring forth fruits worthy of the kingdom is found primarily in

the Great Sermon, reported in Matthew as the Sermon on the Mount and in Luke as the

Sermon on the Plain. The extensive similarities between the sermons which present

nearly identical sayings in similar order demonstrate that they are probably different

reports of the same sermon delivered by the historic Jesus. Yet the sermon fulfills

different purposes for Luke and Matthew. The different viewpoints from which Luke and

Matthew reflect on the sermon are extremely valuable because they allow us to see the

sermon both in the more original context as a critique of the halakhah, or interpretation of

the Jewish Law, found in Matthew, and in the light of the Gentile appreciation of the

gospel as social critique explored in Luke. The message stressed in both gospels

converges into a single focal point, however, which reveals the essence of the teachings

of the historic Jesus.

Luke’s account of the Great Sermon contains none of the technical legal

terminology associated with the Law found in the Matthean account. For example, Luke

excised all of the statements of the Law from its sermons which contrasted with Jesus'

statements regarding the Law regulating conduct for those who would enter the Kingdom

of God. Luke's gospel also avoids all legal terminology which might be misunderstood in

the gentile context, e.g., (dexian sou siagona Mt. 5:39b), "on the right of your cheek;"

(krithenai Mt. 5:40) "to sue;" (aggareusei Mt. 5:41) "shall compel." Luke thus avoided

the context of Palestinian Judaism and the Law in which the Great Sermon was originally

given and reinterpreted it for a gentile audience ignorant of the controversy surrounding

the interpretation of the Law that preoccupied Jesus. The gospel of Luke demonstrates

the power of Jesus' teachings precisely because the true meaning of the Law which Jesus

sought to expound in the Sermon transcends cultural and temporal barriers. The point of

the gospel of Luke is that such barriers must be broken down in the Kingdom, for the

mode of existence in the kingdom is independent of the authority of the Law or any

particular cultural mores, but is grounded in a universal ethic reflected in God's conduct.

Luke's gospel therefore summarizes the reason for the new ethic that Jesus propounded

which is not found in Matthew. One is to love enemies, lend without hoping for any

return or personal gain "because [the Father] is kind to those who are unthankful" (Lk.

6:35b).

Luke interprets the sayings presented in the Sermon much more concretely and

literally than Matthew. He intends the sayings to apply to a real and present world where

injustice and oppression are the norm (Richard Cassidy, Jesus. Politics, and Society, New

York 1978, 32). Jesus looked upon his disciples, in contrast to the multitude found in

Matthew, and said: "Blessed be you poor: for yours is the kingdom of God." The

juxtaposition of blessings for the poor and woes for the rich demonstrate that Luke

clearly has in mind those who actually are poor in the fullest prophetic sense. Jesus'

sermon has reference to the place of the economically deprived, politically oppressed and

socially despised (Sci11ebeeckx, p. 176). The poor, the sorrowful and the hungry are

blessed precisely because this world holds no promise for them (Lk. 6:21). Such persons

cannot find recourse through the courts or through social prestige, their vision is not

distorted by the riches and praise of this world and they can therefore see the present

world for what it is, i.e., a pursuit of a pseudo-value which will decay with the corruption

of the created order which human pride and vanity have voluntarily spawned (Lk. 6:22-

26). The poor should therefore rejoice and the rich mourn, because only those who are

poor as to the world can have an eye single to the glory of God, for there hearts are not

set upon this world but upon the kingdom (Lk. 12:32-34). Luke's account of the sermon

contains a warning to the rich not found in Matthew's account of the sermon. Luke's

Jesus can therefore warn the rich: "Woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your

consolation. Woe unto you that are full! for ye shall hunger. Woe unto you that laugh

now! for ye shall mourn and weep." (Lk. 6:24-26) In the kingdom, those that are last

shall be first, and the first shall be last (Lk. 13:30).

Luke sees Jesus as heir to the prophets who chastised the oppressors of the poor.

His disciples should rejoice because the ruling classes reject them: "your reward is great

in heaven, for their fathers rejected the prophets in the same way." (Lk. 6:23). Jesus did

not teach a mere reversal of the Deuteronomic ethic where God blesses the righteous with

riches and wicked with poverty, nor did he intend merely a reversal of roles where the

poor will have it all over the rich in the world to come as in the parable of Lazarus and

the rich man (Lk. 16:19-31). The fullest meaning of Jesus sayings, however, is that in

this world those things which matter most ultimately are at the mercy of those things

which matter least. The kingdom will be very different, for it will be comprised of those

whose entire life is centered on what is truly of value - a world where the meaning of

existence is found in love for others. The economic norm of this world where

relationships are entered only for individual gain and without regard for the well being of

the economic partner will be replaced by a system of relationships which finds its whole

meaning in the well-being of others: "Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him

that taketh away thy goods ask them not again." (Lk. 6:30; cf., 6:35). The new order is

judged by self interest becoming the measure of interest for others. Jesus did not teach

that persons should act against self-interest; rather, one's real interest and meaning is

found in regarding others as God loves us. The first two commands thus become the

basis of the new law of conduct required by Jesus (Mt. 22:27/Mk. 12:29-30). Luke

translates the second command to love others as ourselves into a norm of human conduct

that is not found in the Matthean account of the sermon: "as ye would that men should

do to you, do ye also to them likewise." (Lk. 6:31).

The key to understanding Jesus' commands relating to ethical conduct is the

nature of God, for he demands that humans relate to one and other in the same way and

for the same reasons that the Father does. Jesus can therefore demand a love that

transcends all economic, social and national boundaries and that goes even beyond the

limitations of natural human inclinations to fear and retaliate against enemies: "Instead,

love your enemies and do good, and lend without any hope of return. You will have a

great reward, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he himself is kind to the

ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful as your Father is merciful." (Lk. 7:35). Jesus' entire

life is oriented toward overcoming the human institutions that circumscribe our conduct

within moral codes that fall short of God's life as norm for us. He therefore ate with the

tax collectors and sinners, he demanded that all legal rights recognized by the nation-state

be ignored, and he forgave his enemies. God's love renders all such norms obsolete and

inadequate. What Jesus offered is not an economic or political system, not a new

national destiny, but a new relationship to one's fellow human beings that finds its fullest

meaning in the way God loves us. Of course, such a relationship transcends and

transforms particular political and economic systems as it did for the earliest Christians

who entered into a communitarian relationship almost immediately after the resurrection

(Acts 2:44-45).

In contrast to Luke, Matthew removes the urgency of Jesus' sayings from the

concrete economic and political setting and places them in the context of fulfilling the

Torah or Law. The poor become the "poor in spirit," and those who hunger and thirst do

no lack food, but hunger and thirst after "righteousness" (Mt. 5:3, 6). It may be improper

to say that Matthew "removes" Jesus sayings from the concrete socio-economic context,

however, because Matthew's view of Jesus' teachings as a critique of the Palestinian

Jewish interpretation of the Law probably more accurately understands the original

import of Jesus' sayings (Albright and Fitzmeyer. Matthew. Anchor Bible, cix-cx).

Matthew's understanding of Jesus' purpose is well summarized in the Sermon: "Think

not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to

fulfill" (Mt. 5:17).

The gospels never portray Jesus as breaching the Law, though Jesus is charged

with breach of the halakhah by performing a miracle on the Sabbath (Mt. 12:9-12/Lk 6:6-

9/Mk. 3:1-6). His disciples are thrice charged with breach of the halakhah. Jesus'

disciples ignored the Palestinian interpretation of the Law by picking ears of corn on the

Sabbath (Mt. 12:l-2/Mk. 2:23-26/Lk. 6:1-4) by failing to wash their hands before eating

(Mk. 7:2-9/Mt. 15:2-9) and by failing to observe the fast (Mt. 9:14-15/Mk. 2:18-20/Lk.

5:33-35). It is important to understand that Jesus does not regard such interpretations as

expressing the true meaning of the Law. The Pharisees questioned Jesus, "why do your

disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with hands defiled?"

The interpretations of the "elders," the halakhah, were the authoritative teachers in the

Palestinian community (Goppelt, 89). According to the halakhah, one was required to

purify the hands before each meal. Jesus response was decisive and threatening. Jesus

considered the interpretations of Law proposed by the Scribes and Pharisees as the

hypocritical "commandments of men" and not from God: "For laying aside the

commandments of God, ye hold the tradition of men....Full well you reject the

commandments of God and keep the commandments of men." (Mk. 7:8-9).

Jesus did not intend to reject the Law, but to reveal its true meaning. The Essenes

at Qumran also rejected the Pharisaic-Rabbinic halakhah as the precepts of men and not

of God. The last thing they wished, however, was to replace the Law. They considered it

impossible to replace the Torah. Instead, they countered the Palestinian interpretation of

the Law with a more strict interpretation which they regarded as the hidden meaning of

the Law (CD 5:20; 19:15-18). Though Jesus' interpretation of the Law differs

significantly from that proposed at Qumran, his attitude toward the casuistic halakhah

enforced by the Scribes and Pharisees is quite similar. When the head of the synagogue

charged Jesus with breach of the public order by healing on the Sabbath (Lk. 13:14),

Jesus again responded that such an interpretation of the Law was casuistry, and he

charged the leader as a "hypocrite," that is, one who would profess to be something he is

not. The Scribes and Pharisees had misinterpreted the commandment to keep the

Sabbath, for the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath (Mt. 12:8/Mk.

2:28/Lk 6:5). Moreover, Jesus presented himself as having authority to reinterpret the

Sabbath command, for "the Son of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath." As the final judge

of the works of all persons, the Son of Man could justify any action, but only in

accordance with the Law and justice.

The final authority of Jesus’ interpretation of the Sabbath command was not his

status as judge, but the obvious and true intent of the Law itself. After Jesus entered into

the synagogue, the Pharisees watched him closely to see if he would heal a man on the

Sabbath - in particular, they wanted to see if he would heal by touch or by word alone, for

healing by touch was forbidden by the Palestinian halakhah but healing by the word

alone was permissible on the Sabbath (Flusser, 74). Significantly, Jesus healed him by a

verbal command without touching the maimed hand. The true meaning of the Sabbath

command was not strict compliance with the traditions, but in its power to heal the soul.

Jesus' question cut to the heart of the true meaning of the command: "Is it lawful to do

good on the Sabbath?" The Pharisees held their peace (Mk. 3:4) both because they could

not level a charge against Jesus and because he had exposed their casuistry. Jesus' charge

against the Law was not that it should be abolished, but that the Pharisees had overlooked

the spirit or true intent of the Law.

Similarly, following the controversy over the disciples' failure to observe the

korban by purifying their hands before eating, Jesus again exposed the misplaced

interpretation of the Law: "Nothing that enters the mouth from outside can defile a man;

only those things which come out of the mouth can defile the man." (Mt. 15:ll/Mk. 7:15).

Even Jesus' disciples who apparently did not observe the halakhab were troubled by this

saying, for it seemed to strike at the very heart of the Law which they revered. Jesus'

responded to Peter's apparent inability to grasp the meaning of the saying: "are you also

unable to understand yet?" Jesus emphasized his understanding of Law again by

revealing its true meaning. He did not suspend the Law, for he did not instruct his

disciples that they could eat unclean things; rather, he reveals the meaning of ritual

purity: "Don't you understand yet that whatever goes into a man from outside cannot

make him unclean, because it goes not go into his heart but through his stomach and

passes into the sewer?... It is what comes out of a man that makes him unclean. For it is

from within, from men's hearts, that evil intentions emerge: fornication, theft, murder,

adultery, avarice, malice, deceit, indecency, envy, slander, pride, folly. All These evil

things come from within and make a man unclean." (Mk. 7:14-23). Jesus sought the true

meaning of the Law by plumbing the depth of the new covenant and the law written in

the heart prophesied by Jeremiah, and not as interpreted by men (Jer. 31:31-33).

The command to love enemies is placed in the context of a similar interpretation

of the Law by Matthew. The leitmotif of Jesus' Sermon is made explicit by Matthew who

is at pains to explain that Jesus did not abolish the Law: "Whoever shall break one of the

commandments and teach others to do so will be the least in the kingdom of heaven: but

whoever will do and teach them will be great in the kingdom of heaven." (Mt. 5:17, 19).

Jesus' Sermon represents the commandments that must be performed for access to the

kingdom of God. It represents the fulfillment of the Law by revealing the true meaning

of Law and the nature of those who will be deemed worthy of the kingdom.

Jesus contrasted his interpretation of the Law with the written statement of the

law in a typical rabbinic manner (Fitzmeyer, CIX). Jesus' formulaic contrast, "You have

heard it said by those in past times...but I say unto you," adopts a well-known interpretive

device known from the first part of the second century in the writings of Rabbi Ishmael,

"I might hear (i.e., you understand the literal meaning)... but you must say (i.e., the

essential meaning is...)." Jesus does not propose a new interpretation, but an

interpretation of the true or real meaning underlying the Law. The Qumran covenanters

also interpreted the Law and prophets in a manner known as pesher (meaning

"interpretation"), setting off the common understanding of the Law with its true meaning

(James Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the N.T.. SCM Press 1977, 142).

The several contrasts in the Matthean sermon demonstrate that Jesus does not

abrogate the Law, but goes beyond the Law. The first contrast is between the command

not to commit adultery and the new command to totally overcome the wish to commit

adultery: "You have heard it said by those in times past, thou shalt not commit adultery;

but I say unto you that whoever looks upon a woman to lust after her has already

committed adultery with her in his heart." (Mt. 5:27-28). Note that Jesus does not

excuse persons for doing less than is required by the Law; he explicitly prohibited

conduct that went beyond the Law which was unconcerned with totally subjective

behavior that could not possibly be regulated by the community. The second contrast is

between the Law's provisions for divorce and the prohibition against divorce except in

the case of adultery (Mt. 5: 31-32). Jesus later explained his opposition to divorce even

though allowed explicitly by the Law. In response to the Pharisees query whether it is

lawful for a man to divorce his wife, Jesus answered that Moses had allowed divorce only

"because of the hardness of your hearts." But Jesus emphasized that divorce had not been

allowed from the beginning: "from the beginning of creation God made them male and

female ... What God therefore hath joined together, let no man put asunder" (Mt. 19:4-

8/Mk. 10:4-5). Jesus seems to have taught that the Law made allowances because of

human inability to live a higher Law which prevailed before the time of Moses and which

he was restoring. The restored Law made no provision for human limitations, but is

grounded in the divine nature which makes all things possible. The third contrast sets the

prohibition of the Law against oaths based on one's life but which allowed oaths

performed in the name of God (Mt. 5:33-37). Instead, Jesus disallowed oaths even

performed in the name of God, for God should not be profaned by making him the

enforcer of secular bonds.

Jesus as Exemplar of the Love of God: The climax of the Great Sermon and of

Jesus' new understanding of the Law is the command to love enemies, which is identical

in both Matthew and Luke. Both evangelists frame the command as a description of the

required character of those who would inhabit the Father's kingdom. There are important

differences in the context of the command, however, which demonstrate that the

command to love enemies had a different status in Matthew than in Luke:

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth (Ex. 21:24): But I say unto you, resist not evil: but whosoever smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if a man will sue that at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him two miles. Give to him that asketh of thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor (Lev. 19:18), and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies,

bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have you? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye greet your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans the same? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect, (Mt. 5:38-47).

The Great Sermon in Matthew again contains material relating to the Law of Moses

which is missing in the Lukean account. Matthew shows Jesus demanding behavior

which goes beyond the lex talionis, an eye for an eye, by demanding that his disciples not

resist (hantistenai) evil. The command to not resist evil, along with the contrast of the

Law, is missing in Luke. The command not to resist evil should not be understood in the

modern sense of rejecting not only all forms of physical violence but also of avoiding any

confrontation with those who are responsible for existing evils (Richard J. Cassidy, Jesus,

Politics and Society. Orbis 1978, 40-41). Rather, the command relates to the context of

not resorting to the remedies provided in the Law of Moses for retaliation to physical

violence. Jesus consistently challenged those responsible for existing evils, though he did

not sanction violence or recourse to Law as a mode of resolving those evils. Instead,

Jesus taught that personal conversion by turning from the things valued by the world and

returning to commitment to the kingdom, was the only answer to the dilemma of

response to violence by violence.

The value of the lex talionis, however, should not be lightly dismissed. As

Albiright and Mann commented, "[i]t should be remembered that the law of retaliation

here quoted by Jesus acted, in its own time and for many centuries afterwards, as a much

needed check on the widely practiced blood feud. Moreover, the Old Covenant Law

provided for recourse to the courts; and however brutal we may think the punishment, it

was within set limits and had sanctions which the blood feud did not have" (p. 68). Jesus

was instructing his disciples that under the New Covenant, there would be no such

recourse to the courts. His disciples must endure anyone who is evil. Hence, they can no

longer defend themselves in the courts if someone sues them at law. The point that Jesus

is making should not be simplified to the statement that Christians must passively endure

evils without any hope of changing the world. Jesus entire message was centered on

transforming the world, but the norm of conduct is no longer the Law which Jesus sees as

a norm of conduct adapted to the limitations of this world. The new rule of conduct is

not the Law adapted to an evil world, but to the kingdom which is breaking into the

present whenever and wherever persons act toward one another as the Father acts towards

all persons.

Luke discusses the prohibition against entering into relationships for personal

gain, but avoids all terminology related to the Law which his gentile audience cannot

appreciate. Luke has excised all talk of the lex talionis and has avoided the technical

terms used by the Law even in those sayings which he does preserve. He removes the

terms dexian relating to the Law's definition of striking on the right cheek, krithenai

relating to the Law's terminology for an action under the law meaning "to sue," and

aggareusei which relates to being compelled or pressed into service, used in Jesus' time

in relation to compulsory carrying of military weapons (Albright and Mann, 69). Luke

thus scrupulously avoids legalisms, and transmits those wisdom sayings which transcend

any particular legal system. Luke's Jesus commands charity and summarizes what he

understands to be the essential meaning of Jesus’ message for his audience who might

otherwise misunderstand: "As ye desire that men do to you, so do you to them also."

(6:31).

The gospel of Matthew includes another contrast not found in Luke's gospel:

"You have heard it said. Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy" (5:43).

Only the first phrase, "love thy enemy," is found in the Law. Nowhere does the Law

command enemy hate. The command to hate enemies limits the command to love

neighbors, for love for one's neighbor in the Jewish thought of Jesus’ time had very

clearly delineated ethnic and religious limitations. Jesus presented an altogether different

understanding of neighbor that extended beyond ethnic boundaries as illustrated in the

parable of the Good Samaritan. The command to hate enemies seems to be a gloss on the

command to neighbor love that was prominent in Jesus’ environment. The Zealots

clearly urged violent revolution and hatred for enemies. The Qumran community's

Serekh Scroll also taught that members of the community should be loved, but all

outsiders should be hated. All who entered the community were required to take an oath

"to love all the children of light, each according to his stake in the formal community of

God; and to hate all the children of darkness, each according to the measure of his guilt,

which God will ultimately requite" (1QS i, 23-23, trans. Gaster). Jesus does not reject the

Law here, he simply expands the concept of neighbor under the Law to include everyone.

Jesus certainly did not reject neighbor-love; he rejected only the gloss of the love-

command by some in his day, possibly the Zealots and/or Qumran Covenanters. Luke

notes that one of Jesus’ disciples, Simon, had a Zealot background. Luke seems to

suggest that Jesus "is at least familiar with the main characteristics of the Zealots

programs, particularly with their commitment to overthrow Roman rule by force of arms"

(Cassidy, 42). The question of whether force and violence should be used to overthrow

political oppressors was a burning issue for many in Jesus’ day. It is an entirely

defensible reading of Jesus’ rejection of enemy-hate as explicit rejection of the Zealot

program to achieve social justice through force and war. His stance wasn't so much anti-

Zealot, however, as pro-kingdom of God. He is at least implicitly rejecting the Zealot

program, however, as well as the Qumran theological tradition that sets up boundaries

between the elect and the damned, between the loved and hated. As Edward

Schi1lebeeckx cogently stated: "what this command to love calls in question is self-

righteousness: to give up one's own claim to being in the right is said here to be a

demand made by Jesus, a demand 'on God's part' - a demand not to question God's justice

but to doubt one's own" (p. 236).

Jesus’ command to love even enemies is the apex of his teaching about the

kingdom. Throughout history, numerous attempts have been made to understand the

command in a way that allows us to get on with life in this world, to soften its universal

appeal, but there are no such limitations to the command to love enemies. The enemy-

love command is understandable only as a mode of conduct not fit for the present world

because it is intended to transform this world into what it is diametrically opposed to - the

kingdom of God. The command asks us to eliminate all boundaries to human love that

do not exist for the Father. We must love both neighbor and enemy, both just and unjust,

for the Father causes his sun to rise equally on both. Jesus commanded his followers to

look beyond the boundaries established by the publicans, for the Father knows no such

boundaries to his love. Jesus raised the question of "reward" in this context, not in the

sense of a pay-off for exhibiting the right behavior, but in the sense that only when we

can be allowed into God's kingdom can we become heirs to the divine life. The promise

made by Jesus to his followers was that those who love their enemies will become the

children of God, and as such, heirs to kingdom.

The love-command culminates in the command to become like God. Matthew

adds at the beginning of the Sermon several blessings statements which summarize other

parts of the Sermon and which detail the character of those worthy of the kingdom:

“blessed are the peacemakers: for they sail be called the children of God” (Mt. 5:9, cf

5:45). As John Piper stated, love for one's enemies is a "condition" of entrance into the

kingdom of God:

Jesus promised those who loved their enemies that they would thereby become sons of God because God is kind to his enemies.... If you do not obey the command to love your enemies, you will have no reward at all. 'If you love those who love you, what reward do you have?' Answer: none. To love your enemies is to receive the reward of sonship; not to love your enemies is to be denied the reward of sonship. The fulfillment of Jesus' love command is a condition for sonship of the heavenly Father (76-77).

Jesus commanded his followers to love everybody, including enemies, "because

[the Father] is kind to the unthankful and to the evil" (Lk. 6:35). Jesus thus concluded his

restatement of the Law with a command which became the sum of the new rule of

conduct: "be ye therefore perfect, even as your father in heaven is perfect."

Jesus’ entire message is oriented toward showing that we must become like God.

Jesus could properly be considered in later theological reflection as a revelation of the

ultimate nature of both what God is and what man is and may become because he

exemplified the love and conduct of God toward all persons. He ate with sinners and tax-

collectors not primarily to offend the sensibilities of his contemporaries, but to show that

ethnic and social boundaries must be overcome, for no such boundaries exist for God.

His conduct was not less human because it was fully expressive of divinity; rather, it was

fully expressive of what is possible for humans if we freely respond to the divine

persuasion as did Jesus. Jesus is himself the sign and exemplar of the kingdom of God.

Jesus must have realized that his commands were "hard sayings" that appeared absurdly

impossible to achieve. Could the world possibly be transformed through love; could

political oppression be ended and justice achieved without force and war? No matter

how difficult it may seem, Jesus’ message and promise was that the peace of the kingdom

of God can be achieved in no other way.

The parable of the rich man addressed the seeming impossibility of achieving the

kingdom of God. The parable of the rich man is one of the best attested parables in the

Synoptics, and responds concretely to the inquiry made by a rich, young man: "Good

Master, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" (Mt. 19:16/Mk. 10:17/Lk. 18:18). Jesus’

response is both surprising and instructive: "why do you call me good? There is none

that is good, save one, that is God." Such a response indicates that Jesus did not

understand himself as somehow God or having a nature identical to God. Jesus did not

intend to address his relation to God, however, but the concrete basis for measuring one's

acceptability into the kingdom of God - the Father is again the standard of behavior.

Jesus responded further, however, with the commands of the Law: "Thou

knowest the commandments, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not bear false

witness, do not defraud, honor your mother and father." Jesus did not teach that the Law

had been abolished; to the contrary, its demands remained in full force. The young man

responded that he kept the Law, and had done so since his youth. Such a response was

sufficient in Judaism. No more could be expected. Jesus continued however: "Yet you

lack one thing: go and sell everything you own and give it to the poor, and you will have

treasure in heaven: and come, follow me." The message was identical in substance to

the Great Sermon. Jesus required the young man to go beyond the Law. He required

nothing less than that everything valued by this world be converted into everything

valued in the kingdom to come. He required further that the young man follow him, not

in the sense of merely tagging along, but in the fullest sense of discipleship where Jesus’

mode of conduct became also his. The young man could not go beyond the Law and

renounce the perishable treasures of this world: "he was very sorrowful, for he had great

possessions."

Jesus’ retort at the young man's inability to re-evaluate what mattered most

simply astonished his disciples: "A rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of

God." Mark reports that Jesus’ disciples could hardly believe what Jesus required to

enter into the kingdom. It would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle

than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God. John Piper explained how such a

response was in fact consistent with Jesus’ entire message: "the rich man's inability to

enter the Kingdom of God was his inability to meet the condition which Jesus set. A man

cannot abandon that which he loves most (cf. Lk. 14:26, dinatai). He cannot choose

against what he values most highly, he cannot give his heart to that which he does not

treasure (Mt. 6:21 par.). Therefore, as long as a man treasures that which is on earth,

whether it be riches (Mk. 10:17-22), family (Lk. 14:25f), religious practices (Lk. 18:9-14,

Mt. 6:Iff), wisdom (Mt. 11125 par), political power (Mk. 10:42ff), or his own life (Mk.

8:34f par), it will be impossible for that man to inherit the kingdom of God" (77-78,

emphasis in original). Given the natural human tendency to value only earthly treasures

(Mt. 6:32; Jn. 5:44), Jesus’ disciples were rightly perplexed and troubled at the seemingly

impossible requirements imposed by Jesus: "Who then can be saved?" they demanded.

Jesus recognized that he requested the impossible: "With men it is impossible, but not

with God: for with God all things are possible" (Mt. 19:26/Mk. 10:27/Lk. 18:27).

Jesus demanded that his disciples devote everything to the kingdom of God. They

were to do everything humanly possible to achieve it, but still it would be impossible.

They were to follow the Torah, and they were capable of so doing, but that of itself was

not sufficient. Only after they had done everything they could, and devoted their entire

heart, might, mind and strength to the kingdom of God, then, and only then, would God

make it possible. Jesus’ concept of grace - to use a concept loaded with excess

theological baggage that was not used by Jesus in this same sense - is that God enables

persons to achieve the impossible after persons have done everything humanly possible.

It is not humanly possible, however, to forget that we live here and now in the world and

to manifest the divine love even for our enemies, just as it was not possible for the rich

man to cease to value his earthly estate over all else. It is impossible to love enemies -

unless the Father enables us. The battle over whether faith and grace alone are sufficient,

or whether works are required for "salvation," as Jesus understood it, establishes a false

dichotomy. Faith in Jesus and works of love for others were, for Jesus, two aspects of the

same act. Grace isn't possible until the entire heart, might, mind and soul are devoted to

God, and then grace enables and makes possible what isn't otherwise possible. God's

grace wasn't sufficient for the rich young man because he refused to change his heart to

allow God to change him into a son. He refused to believe that what Jesus offered was

truly more valuable than his wealth.

The challenge that confronted Jesus’ hearers was found not only in his message

and command to bring forth repentance worthy of the kingdom, but also the identity and

authority of the new lawgiver. As discussed above, the expectation of a messiah who

would appear and decisively liberate the Jewish nation for Roman oppression was

intense. Though it is beyond the scope of our purpose to determine what the historical

evidence suggests about who and what Jesus claimed to be, it is virtually certain that he

did not claim to be the messiah of popular Jewish expectation. The titles that were

applied to Jesus in later reflections of the disciples do not necessarily reflect Jesus’ self-

understanding. For example, Jesus seems to have been reluctant to allow others to refer

to him as Messiah. Jesus rebuked the demons and demanded that they be silent when

they referred to him as the Holy One of God (Mk. 1:25/Lk. 4:35). Jesus adjured those

whom he had healed to remain silent (Mt. 8:4/Mk. 1:44/Lk. 5:14). When Jesus

apparently requested his disciples to disclose to him what they understood him to be and

Peter confessed that he recognized him as the Messiah, Jesus charged his disciples to

refrain from telling others that he was the Messiah (Mt. 16:20/Mk. 8:30/Lk. 9:21). The

gospel of Mark stresses that the disciples themselves did not understand the messianic

statements made by Jesus during his lifetime, and only came to understand that he was

the Sent One, the Messiah, after his death and resurrection (Mk. 4:13; 6:52; 8:17-21;

9:10; 10:32). Jesus apparently avoided open and public discussion of his identity, and

taught in parables to conceal "the secret of the kingdom of God" from those who would

fail to value his message properly; for it would be as casting pearls before swine (Mt.

13:9-17/Mk. 4:11-13/Lk. 8:9-10). Whatever else may be gathered from such reticence,

these are not the actions of one who desires to promulgate the message that all should

publicly recognize him as Messiah.

As suggested above, Jesus may have understood himself to be the Son of Man,

but not the son of man of popular Jewish apocalyptic expectation. Jesus apparently felt

that he could judge the sins of others in role as the Son of Man, but as we have seen, his

judgment was invariably one of forgiveness and acquittal. Further, the Gospels reveal

that he saw himself not as the triumphant Son of Man who would come in decisive glory

on the throne of God, but as a suffering Son of Man that was foreign to the popular

understanding. Jesus' disciples understood after his death that his death was an

atonement, an event that Jesus undertook on their behalf to reconcile them to the Father.

In Mark (as source, with parallels in Matthew and Luke) there are three predictions of the

future suffering of the Son of Man, presented as unmistakable predictions of Jesus’ own

fate. Each prediction is more precise and detailed than the previous one. Though the

understandings of the Son of Man's suffering represented in these sayings were

undoubtedly expanded and interpreted by the later disciples before being placed in the

Gospels, we can legitimately ask if Jesus’ own self-understanding developed as his

identity became clearer to him. Though the sayings have likely been made clearer by the

later disciples who wrote with the benefit of hind-sight, Jesus seems to have sensed

impending suffering and death, but also believed that God would make him victorious.

Immediately following Peter's confession whereby he recognized Jesus as the

Messiah, Jesus "began to teach [his disciples] that the Son of man must suffer many

things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priest and scribes, and be killed, and

after three days rise again" (Mk. 8:31; par Mt. 16:21/Lk. 9:22). The context suggests that

Jesus strived with his disciples to correct their understanding of him. It is no wonder they

could not grasp his meaning, however, because Jesus offered an understanding that

required a revolution in familiar concepts about the Son of man. How could a divine

being undergo death? Such a suggestion was simply foreign to the Jewish understanding

of the divine nature - just as much as it is for us. When Jesus had departed to Galilee

with his disciples, he apparently tried again to teach them that "the Son of Man is

delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and after the he is killed, he shall

rise the third day (Mk. 9:31; par. Mt. 17:22/Lk. 9:44). The evangelists are quick to point

out, however, that the disciples "understood not that saying, and were afraid to ask him

[what it meant]" (Mk. 9:31/Mt.17:23/Lk. 9:45).

Immediately before entering Jerusalem for the last time, Jesus was apparently

aware that he faced danger. He is presented as having told his disciples that they would

go to Jerusalem where "the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priest, and the

scribes, and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles: and

they shall mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall spit upon him, and shall kill him:

and the third day he shall rise again" (Mk. 10:33-34/Mt. 20:18-19/Lk. 18:32-34).

Hebrews 5:7-8 reports that Jesus too had to grow in awareness through trials and manifest

faith that the Father could prevail even the face of death: "In the days when he was in the

flesh, he offered prayers and supplications with cries and tears to God who was able to

save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence. Son though he was, he

learned obedience from what he suffered." As Raymond Brown eloquently observed,

"Jesus had preached that God's kingdom would be realized most readily when human

beings acknowledged their dependence on God....We humans come most clearly to terms

with our helplessness when we face death. Did Jesus, the proclaimed of the Kingdom,

himself have to experience the vulnerability of dying before the Kingdom could be

achieved through him?" (A Crucified Christ in Holy Week. Ligurcial Press, Collegeville

Minn., 1986, 17). The progression of understanding presented in the Synoptics suggests

that Jesus perceived intimations of the violent death that awaited him, but believed that

he would have, nevertheless, a leading role in the kingdom that would be established

before all of his disciples died (Mk. 9:1/Mt. 16:28/Lk. 9:27).

Jesus seized the opportunity upon entering Jerusalem to teach his disciples what

and who they should understand him to be. The synoptic gospels, apparently with Mark

as source and parallels in Matthew and Luke, and John on the basis of an apparently

independent source, report that Jesus, by previous arrangement, sent two disciples for a

colt. Jesus mounted the colt to ride it into the city. There is little question that Jesus

made the arrangements for the colt for the purpose of fulfilling the messianic prophecy

found in Zechariah 9:9-10:

See now, your king come to you; he is victorious, he is triumphant, humble and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

he will banish the chariots from Ephraim and horses from Jerusalem; the bow of wa